[ Home ] [ Announcement ] [ Participants ] [ Papers ] [ Results ] [ e-Consultations ] [ Hillary Medal ] [ Photos ] [ Links ]
Session II (April 7 - 11) of the PPMT e-consultation
Discussion Paper:
"Security issues related to tourism in remote mountainous destinations."
by Dr. Seth Sicroff
Director, Bridges-PRTD; Namche Conference Organizer
First I'd like to thank Beau Beza for his capable moderation of Session I of these Namche Conference e-Consultations. The theme for Session II of the Namche Conference e-Consultations is "Security issues related to tourism in remote mountainous destinations." Mountains are hazardous areas in general, for two reasons: they are the venue for extremely dynamic geomorphological processes (earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide) as well as dramatic meteorological events (sudden storms and blizzards) and resulting avalanche and flood; and they are comparatively inaccessible. Problems that would be less serious elsewhere become life-and-death emergencies, or simply intractable, because of the unavailability of services that are taken for granted in urban areas: these problems include health (and accidents such as falls), crime and political insurgency. Worse: even when means of mitigating mountain hazards are available, the authorities generally find it expedient to ignore the problems -- until they become crises.
The problems multiply when tourism is an issue, partly because adventure tourists actively court disaster. Even those who are not looking for an adrenaline rush are at least looking for an escape from precisely those services (communication, transportation, police, central heating) that would mitigate natural hazards. And not only are these tourists looking for a bit of a thrill, they are also inclined to involve local service providers in their exposure – often to a far greater degree than they incur themselves.
Some security issues seem relatively simple. An example is porter security: whether independent trekkers or commercial tour operators, employers have to take more responsibility for the safety of their employees. That means better equipment, insurance, and a sense of fair play. Even here, though, there are great difficulties. Paying porters more than the going rate can undermine the basic transportation system for the local economy, with a ripple effect on the price of commodities and other services such as farm labor. Furthermore, since commercial operators are so competitive, there would need to be an industry-wide determination and enforcement of wages and benefits. Such regulation inevitably breeds inequity and evasive strategies – not to mention corruption and the perception (or reality) of bureaucratic incompetence. And here we are talking about a simple issue.
Another relatively simple issue is particularly pertinent to this year's Golden Jubilee. Climbing Mt. Everest is always going to be risky, but there are ways of mitigating the hazards. In my "Welcome Statement" a few days ago, I floated the idea of calling an international symposium to consider new regulations ("Everest Summit: Setting the Standard"). One strategy might be to create an index of difficulty for summits and routes, and to deny permission to applicants for any given summit who could not document a climb of near-comparable difficulty (e.g. within a half point, on a ten-point scale). That would have the salutary effect of channeling more attention to other peaks, both as preparatory exercises and also as challenges that are recognized to be more difficult. Another possibility would be an urgent request to the Guinness Book of Records not to accept nuisance superlatives and so on. A short list of meaningful challenges should be agreed upon: first ascent, first ascent without oxygen, first solo…with sub-records, perhaps, for male and female and for different nationalities. Naturally, any regulation will impinge on the commercial interests of one stakeholder or another, but the alternative is needless death and injury, and trivialization of a pursuit that ought to be safeguarded and sustained for future stakeholders.
Other issues are so complicated that (once again) any response is largely a matter of taste. For instance, to what extent is the national government responsible for the safety of visitors in remote areas? Should an area remain closed if basic services cannot be provided? If so, which services? Telephone, radio, police, clinic, helicopter evacuation? Road access? Electricity?? The fact is that these services generally arrive after tourism has established a financially compelling need: with so many desperately poor mountain enclaves, a government like Nepal cannot possibly offer services to all. Or: should an area be closed if a clear-and-present danger exists? What about the Maoist insurgency, which posed a real threat to police, but very little hazard to tourists?
What about the responsibilities of foreign embassies? Should they guarantee evacuation of their citizens? What if a tourist has evacuation insurance, but cannot supply immediate proof of coverage due, for instance, to the unavailability of effective communication? What about travel advisories? Should the embassy focus on current conditions or should it stress worst-case scenarios? How should the embassy weigh the safety of a few of its citizens against the local economic calamity that is likely to attend a stringent warning? And what responsibility do authorities bear if they fail to convincingly inform those at risk… and then the worst-case scenario does materialize?
There is no point in pretending that these situations will get worked out on a case-by-case basis. In the movie "Jaws," the core conflict was between the chamber of commerce of the beach resort, on the one hand, and the police and scientific consultant on the other. In Nepal, concerns about the Maoist insurgency have killed the tourism industry on a national scale, despite the fact that fewer tourists have been targeted over the past six years or so than were eaten by that one shark in a couple of hours.
In closing, I would like to focus attention on the Tsho Rolpa problem in Rolwaling, just west of Khumbu, Nepal. The development of this glacial lake outburst flood (GLOF) hazard and the chronicle of efforts to mitigate the hazard are beyond the scope of this short essay, but I invite you to look through some of the material that we have posted on the Internet.
(See list at end of paper.)
Briefly, personnel associated with Summit Travels, a Dutch-operated trekking agency, began to sound the alarm over the rapidly swelling lake at the snout of Trakarding Glacier as early as 1992. Eventually, plans were developed to siphon off some of the lake water, establish a satellite-based warning system, and finally to drain off some of the water through a notch cut into the moraine bank. Meanwhile, press reports of imminent disaster – and, most trenchantly, the threat to the new Khimti hydroelectric plant 75 kilometers south of Rolwaling! -- created panic and dislocation. Then, when the disaster failed to materialize on schedule, there followed a further media frenzy of recriminations for yellow journalism and self-serving doomsday predictions by development consultants and contractors. Finally, with the successful achievement of the preliminary goal of lowering the water level), we find a familiar syndrome of disaster fatigue: the Cassandras have been intimidated, the local people and the tourists have been lulled by a few years of quiescence, and the project is out of money.
We at Bridges-PRTD would like to see the Namche Conference adopt a resolution supporting the establishment of a Mountain Legacy Institute (MLI) at the eastern end of Rolwaling Valley. To this end, we are currently collaborating with the Himalayan Journal of Sciences (HJS) and the Himalayan Resources Institute (HIRI) to form an ad hoc committee; if you are interested, please contact Mr. Ram Bhandari (bhandariram@yahoo.com or hirinepal@mail.com.np) of HIRI; or Mr. Arjun Adhikari or Mr. K. P.Mainali of HJS (himjsci@yahoo.com). One of the primary objectives of this MLI would be to carry out hydrological and geomorphological studies of the Rolwaling watershed, including analysis of the structure and stability of the restraining moraine. Given that GLOF hazards are increasing around the world due to global warming trends, it is important to share information as to the nature of all other aspects of this remarkably beautiful valley as it evolves inevitably from a virtually unimpacted backwater to one of the key attractions of the Nepali Himalayas. By assisting with the logistics of fieldwork, attracting volunteers to collaborate with academic and scientific research, and providing a publication venue for these integrated studies, the Rolwaling MLI could serve as a pilot for similar programs around the world. Instead of just talking about hazards, we could actually make a practical contribution to the security of mountain hosts and mountain visitors alike.
The remarks above represent the views and agenda of Bridges-PRTD. As moderator of Session II of the Namche Conference e-Consultations, I urge each of you to present your own views of the security issues entailed in mountain tourism, and particularly to consider what observations and recommendations you would like to submit for discussion by the participants, both international guest and host community, at the Namche Conference next month.
Resources
Ives, J.D. 1986. Glacial lake outburst floods and risk engineering in the Himalaya. "Occasional paper" published by the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD)/
GLOF-Related Web Sites (all of the following are listed on Bridges' GLOF Web site: http://www.glof.net)
Bridges-PRTD Pages
* On GLOFs in General: GLOF? Jokulhlaup??? http://www.namche.net/bridges/tsho-rolpa-02.html
* GLOFs: the past predicts the future http://www.namche.net/bridges/tsho-rolpa-03.html
* Chronology of Tsho Rolpa GLOF Hazard Response: The Dutch Connection http://www.namche.net/bridges/tsho-rolpa-04.html
* Chronology of Tsho Rolpa GLOF Hazard Response: Panic! http://www.namche.net/bridges/tsho-rolpa-05.html
* Chronology of Tsho Rolpa GLOF Hazard Response: The final solution? http://www.namche.net/bridges/tsho-rolpa-06.html
* Hazard Mitigation Efforts at Tsho Rolpa http://www.namche.net/bridges/tsho-rolpa-01.html
* Tsho Rolpa Hazard Mitigation Project: The Fix http://rolwaling.tripod.com/2k/2k-tr-fix.html
* Tsho Rolpa Hazard Mitigation Project: A Gentler, Dryer Lake? http://rolwaling.tripod.com/2k/2k-tr-dryer.htmlICIMOD Pages:
* ICIMOD: Mountain Development Profile MDP No. 2, September 2001: Glacial Lakes and Glacial Lake Outburst Floods http://www.icimod.net/publications/profiles/glacial.htm
* ICIMOD presents: Inventory of Glaciers, Glacial Lakes, and Glacial Lake Outburst Floods Monitoring and Early-Warning Systems in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan Region Nepal http://www.rrcap.unep.org/glofnepal/guide/movie.html/
* ICIMOD Menris: Glacial Lake Outburst Floods in the Hindu Kush-Himalaya http://www.icimod.net/focus/gis/esri/glacialfact.htm
| Main Page |